SLAUGHTERMEN'S STRIKE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 13835, 23 February 1907, Page 10

SLAUGHTERMEN'S STRIKE

ARBITRATION COURT PROCEEDINGS. JUDGMENT RESERVED. (Pm Unitm Press Assocutiok.) WELLINGTON, February 22. ' The Arbitration Court Put to-day and heard tho charges against the slaughtermen engaged at the Ngahauranga and Pctonc Meat Works, who had refused to work under the then existing rate per 100 [or killing.

The citation set out that a breach of soetion 15 of the Arbitration Act lmd been committed, and application was made for the enforcement ot the agreement under tho act between tho Wellington Slaughtermen's Union and tho meat companies concerned.

Mr A. Gray appeared for the Department of Labour, and Mr Skerrott for the defendants. Mr Gully represented the Meat Export Company. It was arranged that only four of tho defendants (two from each works) should appear, so as not to interfere with the operations of the companies. It was agreed that tho cases should be hoard together. Mr okorreU objected to the jurisdiction of the court on two grounds. Ho said that section 15 of the act dealt with one class of case, and section 101 of the same act with quote another. The last-mentioned scction plainly was intended for dealing with applications for enforcement of awards and orders of the court. Subsection (b) provided that "If any party on whom tho •award is binding commits any breach thereof the inspector of awards may apply to tho court for enforcement of the award." There was tho limitation, counsel submitted, that, this proceeding was exclusively applied to cases where breaches of awards had taken place. As ho understood section, 15 of tho act, (under which tho informations were laid), it applied to something quite separate and distinct. Section 15 was aimed at the prevention of strikes during tho prevalence of a valid agreement. It included "any worker, whether a member of the union or not." Section 15 created offences, and did not affect breaches of the award. It distinctly 6ct out, that workers who were guilty of tho act alleged "shall bo guilty of aii offence, and shall bo liable to a fine," It related to the manner in which tho fine was to bo inflicted, and lie asked the court to particularly note tho wording of the statute: "In"tho same manner as if it or he were guilty of' a breach of an award." Counsel went on to say that tho anplication in tho present caso was for the enforcement of the agreement, and he submitted that in this proceeding the court had no jurisdiction to impose a fine under section 15. This was a penal offence, and notice must tbo given. Mr Gray did not dispute that the application was for enforcement. Advantage had been taken of the fact that a strike was in progress to applv for a spccial sitting. It was no doubt open to argument whether tile court had power to impose a fine under section 15. This was a new provision, and it was difficult to say what was the proper procedure. All the department asked was, if the court was satisfied that tliero bad been a breach of the agreement, that penalties should bo imposed. Ilis Honor (Mr Justico Sim) asked if it was ncccssary to prove a breach.' If tho court was satisfied that an industrial agreement was in force, and that a strike had taken place, it could impose a penalty under section 15.

Mr Gray urged that Hie procedure adopted was the proper procedure. . His Honor: Ml' Skorrelt docs not dispute that. He' only dispute the jurisdiction of the court on the procedure adopted to impose a fine tinder section 15 when the application is to enforce Hie agreement. Mr Gray said the procedure under section 15 was to lie Hie same as for the enforcement of the award An information or complaint would not suit the proceeding under section 15. which orovided tliafc the proceedings should be as for a breach of an award. After further argument the court retired' to- consider the Question. and on resumins his Honor said that the citation alleged clearly and specifically that a broach of section 15 had been committed, bo that the defendants understood the charge which they had to meet. If the charge were established the only. question would be the amount of the penalty to he imposed. Tho court thought, therefore, that it- had jurisdiction to hear the present application as an application for a penally under section

Mr Gully asked that the matter should be treated as an application to enforce the award, and that the employer whom hp represented should bo entitled to be a party to the proceedings.

The President said the court held that it was not an application to cnforco tho agreement, but for a penalty under scction 15.

Mr Gully, admitted that on such an application the employer had no right to be heard. Mr Skerrctt? Am I to understand that I am to deal with this application as if it were a substantive application under section 15 of the act? His Honor: Yes. In stating his case, Mr Gray said the application was the first of its kind made in New Zealand under the act,"and there could bo no doubt that tho ease was one of the greatest; importance. There was, or was until a few days ago, an industrial agreement between tho two big moat companies and 1 all, or nearly all, the employees. Tho agreement, had 1 rim out, but was really still in force by virtue of the provisions of the act. A largo miml>cr of t,he men were engaged slaughtering sheep at both works, and- they were all being paid tho rates which were fixed by agreement between their union and the companies. Counsel then recited wlint led up to tho trouble. A letter was sent to each of tho companies by tho men on 23rd January sotting out certain alterations it was desired to have made. It would be shown that meetings of the union wcro hold, and subsequently meetings of the men, which were largely attended. On February 11 tiie men struck. Some objection might, ho mado to their .use of this word 1 , but lie contended that from a common-sense point of view tliero had been a strike.. Counsel detailed. tho subsequent negotiations between the manaagemont and : the men, and'their ultimata refusal to kill more than such meat as was required for local consumption. Tho result was that largo numbers of sheep were collected at Petone. and some of them died. Ho understood 'that altogether about 40,000 sheep were on their way to tho works. Things were not so bad at the Meat Company's works, as it. was ablo to stop consignments. On the whole, the action pi tho men had resulted in a. very great loss and great inconvenience. This striko lasted till last Saturday, when the Gear Company was compelled to give in, and tho Meat Export Company followed suit. Tho present position was that tlio strikers had compelled the employers to accrde to their t'.-rms by a course which the act was devised to prevent. . The employers, bo added, bad ottered to pay as back pay any rate which the court might ultimately fix. No more favourable opportunity for a strike could 1 have been seized by tho men. Proceedings against the union had been for the present postponed, and proceedings were also pending against six men who came out. a few days later. ]f the offence was proved he should ask the court to impose a penalty which would make it. patent to all that the law must be observed. This appeared to lie a deliberate attempt to break down tbo law and make the men the masters of tho situation. It. was easy to imagine what would have been tho ease if tho employers had taken steps to prevent the men working or to decrease their wages. Ho urged 1 that there could bo no other conclusion from tho men's action than that they intended to commit a broach of section 15, and that the court should therefore impose a substantial penalty. Counsel produced the agreement, which was to remain in force from Ist August. 1904, until Ist August, 1906, and should " continue in forqe until a new agreement or awa.nl of the court had been made."

An liur 11. Cooper, secretary of the AVellitifCtou Slaughtermen's Industrial Union, said that, all the defendants wero members of ilic union. On February 11 a meeting of tho union, attended by about 90 of its members, was held to consider the offer ninde by the companies. A resolution or agreement was arrived at that tho proposals of tho companies were unsatisfactory, ami another motion .was carried instructing witness to take.steps to secure the cancellation of the registration of tho nnion. Tho question of a strike was also discussed. The view taken bv the men was that from past, experience it was'fair to assume that in any application they might make for .a variation of the agreement tho court would not hear it for twelve months, and it would therefore bo bettor to cease work. Witness told them, it would be illegal to strike. In answer to an inquiry from the men witjiess told them that the only way to get. rid of the agreement was to cancel their registration. They talked about knocking off work, but did not use the word "strike." He' could not remember who used tho expression. There were two or three. Nothing was said about not going to work next morning. The men did not ?o to work next mornhig. When he heard of the strike he endeavoured to bring about a reconciliation, but his suggotions wore not jewivot] .very, {avqimvfe

lie went to Palmerston North, and took no further part in tlio dispute. Neither witness nor the union aided or abetted the strike. John Corner, manager of the stock department at tlio Gear Company's works, gavo evidence regarding the negotiations with tlio men and of their knocking off work. Ho asked them if I hey understood I heir position, and they said they quite knew what thoy were doing. They offered to kill any sheep required for local consumption, but ho told thein that would bo no good. Tlioy then left. There were probably about 10,000 sheep and lambs in (ho yards when the men knocked off, and Iho stock had to be fel on lia.v. About, 40 sheep died during tlio strike. The number was too large to get grazing for. More sheep arrived during tho week. The busy Season commenced in September, and generally stopped about- the end of May. About 5000 sliocp wore killed per day. The company had 110 means' of going on while the strike continued.

Mr Gray endeavoured to get- from witness a statement as to tho average earning of the slaughtermen, but he wasovcr-ruled. Giving evidence as to what occurred at Ngahauranga, James Joseph Moore, works manager for the Wellington Meat Export Company, said lie was approached by Ryan, Pcarce, and Lazarus, and was informed that they wore making demands as a body of men, that tliev had receded from tlio union, and that tliey had given Mr Cooper, tho .secretory, the "sack," and in nowise were acting as unionists Witness detailed what, happened at Ngahuranga. About 60,000 sheep nor month were put through tho Meat. Export Company's works during the busy season.

W. A. Hawkins, clerk of awards for tho Wellington Industrial District, produced tho ward in the slaughtermen's case, which was filed on August 11. 1904. Charles Edward Aldridgo, inspector of awards, said that ho warned tho men against their refusal to work, and that thoy wero individually liable for a breach o£ the agreement. Tliev replied that they were perfectly satisfied as to their position. Richard Jones, a butclhcr employed at tho Meat Export Company's works, and until lately president of the Slaughtermen's Unicn, was called by Mr Gray, who was proceeding to question tho witness as to the meeting of Iho union on February 4-, at which it was decided to cancel the registration of the union, when Mr Skerrett raised tho question,of privilege, pointing out that Jones was one of the defendants,

llis Honor; It is done every day in the caso of a breach of an award, where tlio inspector calls the defendant.

Mr Skerrett: But this is different to a breach of an award. It is an offence.

Mr Gray (to the witness): In wiiat way wero you dissatisfied with tho union?—'l decline to answer,

Mr Gray; I apneal to the court. His Honor; You . can't eross-cxamino your witness. ( Mr Gray (to tho witness): Why did you leave?—l loft of my own motion.

What was that?—l thought of shifting to another part of the island.

Did you make any preparation to shift?— I vrote a couple of letters alter I knocked off work.

Was there any discussion between you and tho men after tho union meeting about not .going to work next day?— No. . The Court; Wero you president of iho union when tho agreement was made?— Xo.

Mr Gray: Have you • any idea, why tho moil ceased work next day?— No. You have never speculated as to the reason?— Well, I have thought it over. I understood that they had minds of their own,

AVas there nothing said at the union meeting about a strike?—So far as I know there was ono juvenile member who /said something about it, but I told them it was against tho law to strike, and I called upon Mr Cooper to explain the position. He tokl them they could not strike, as it was contrary to law.

Mr Skcrrctt: In your capacity as president of the union you have done nothing to aid or promote this strike?— No. Mr Gray called ono of the other defendants.

Mr Skerrott said that no harm was done in calling tho witness; but ho protested against tho prosecution making ,jts ease by calling upon the defendants, to give evidence. *

James Byron, slaughterman at the Meat Export Company's works, was questioned' on linen similar to the previous witness.

•Mr. Skerrett called no evidence. In addressing the court for the defcnce ho maintained that he had no case to answer. Had the prosecution established that there was an industrial agreement in force in tiVs district? That had not been* done. The agreement was not filed until August 11, 1904—0n0 day over tho 30 days after completion within which it should have been filed.

Mr Brown: Tho company has been fined under this agreement.

Mr Skorrett: I don't, care whether lliev have or not. This point was not raised, otherwise the company would not have been punished. The agreement was bad. No date was specified in it for its commencement. There could be no post-dating.

' Mr Gray contended that the agreement was sufficient to bind the parties. It bound botli parties, and was accepted by them. Mr Skerrett:' The satutc says that certain conditions elinll bo complied with, and no party lias power to abrogate tho conditions. As to the beef butchers, it was admitted that they struck. He urged that if tho court decided to inflict a fine, a moderate vindication of tho law would be quite sufficient.

The court announced that, it would take time to consider its judgment. ANOTHER STRIKE AT PAREORA. (Pir United Press Association.) TIMAIIU, February 22. Another strike took place at tho Pareora Works this morning. Forty butchers demanded an increase of pay from 20s to 25s per 100, or they would not start, and as the demand was refused, the sheep wero turned out again. It is understood that a eonferencc wa3 held at Cliristehurch to-day to consider tho question of killing rates, but the Pareora men say that they wore not advised of that or they would not havo stopped. A minority of about, one-fourth wcmlil havo been content to go on,, but gave in to tho majority. The result of the day's conference is awaited. The spokesman •saw Sir George Clifford passing through Timaru, and told him of the demand, but Sir Georgo gavo no definite reply.

Mr Sinclair Eortlnvick's representative had 1 850 freezers to ho killed to-day, and ho personally offered to pay tho difference in the rates as a bonus to get the sheep out of the way. Tho butchers agreed to kill them it tho company would permit, and this is to bo decided at Cliristehurch tonight.

HUGE STRIKE ENGINEERED.

CONFERENCE AT CHRISTQHURCH. (Per United Press Association.) TIMARU, February 22. It, has transpired that under a scheme engineered from either Cliristehurch or Wellington the butchers at all the freezing works from Auckland to the Bluff wero to have ceased work this morning, but that in consequence of a conference being held at Christchurch to-day that order was rescinded. Tho telegram failed to reach tho Pareora Works in timo to prevent tho strike, and the men aro very much annoyed that they havo come out through such an accident.

TROUBLE AT GISBORNE.

INCREASE DEMANDED. (Fir United Press Association.) _ GISRORNE, February 22. The slaughtermen, at the local freezing works have made a demand for 25s per 100 (the present rato being £1), with flic intimation that if it is not granted work will stop at 4 p.m. to-day. A meeting of the Freezers' Union is being held to-night, but tho proceedings are being kept strictly private, and it is doubtful whether any further information will bo obtained to-night.

The secretary of the union states that there .was no truth in the rumour that the men intended knocking off this afternoon. Their request, lie stated, was not in the form of an ultimatum, and they had asked for a. reply this afternoon to enable them'to discuss, the matter further at the meeting to-night. The request for 25s had been made by the men at the time of the making, of tho award under which they were now working, but it bad not been granted, and their present request was merely on the lino of their previous claim.

Mr Do Lautour. chairman of directors of the Gisborne Sheep Farmers' Company, states that a. similar request for an increase of the rate to that maifc to Messrs Nelson Bros, had been forwarded to the Gisborne Company, and the matter was under the consideration of the directors. The award under which the men have been working expired in August last, but. under the act it continued in force until superseded by a fresh award.